I know you guys like to meme on britbongs...

There are no adverts in the shows, or between shows, so it is easier for sheeple to watch; plus the BBC gets to invest in high end productions - especially documentaries. Not that I've ever owned a tv or licence. If it wasn't now total social engineering, it wouldn't be so bad. That said, they are in billions of debt (wtf), yet make billions selling their products abroad and on DVD format (etc). Totally corrupt and inefficient. They're finished; they won't survive another 10 years, as their average viewer age is 64.

is there an actual statistic of that age or are you just shitting on the elderly

Why our are teeth so shit? Is there a reason for this? I keep soda to a minimum and brush and foss three times a day but these fuckers still keep falling out.

In most countries public television is funded by public money i.e state budget.
Since using taxpayer money for your degenerate propaganda causes huge uproar in people, British government decided , that the viewers should pay for TV and thereby fund it.

Since it's really hard to prove state that you don't watch TV (you have to prove , that you don't use online TV services either) , TV gets funded as much (might be more) as it would normally get ( having rely on budget funding) and gets less responsibility for its content.

It's a long way scam.

Attached: 9o7TGBg.jpg (708x708, 201K)

I get to see the BBC for free. And not just the ones on pornhub.

the big 4 commerical channels do get funding from licence fee, i dont think it is right but it's all shit anyway

>you have to prove
no you do not,

>you have to prove
no you do not,

No it's the other way around. We had it too, but not for over 25 years.

No that's not right at all. It should be strictly separated like it is in The Netherlands.

in Italy we don't have a licence, they just take the money out of our electrical bills directly

the public channels air advertisements quite heavily, and the government has mandate to change administration chairs (since it's a big apparatus this doesn't necessarily impact what is televised, currently one channel and several programmes are still tightly bound to the previous government)

No, it is well known:
thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-viewers-have-average-age-of-60-as-young-default-to-netflix-7jg0skcdd

What's the logical thinking behind paying for cable?

It's a tax for having a publically funded broadcaster, it's not a literal licence. A lot of countries have this system.

I wish we didn't have it, but in the grand scheme of things it's less than paying for cable that inundates you with commercials.

I agree, the biggest problem is it just becomes a propaganda arm for the current government.

By all means, we can keep the channels etc, but move the funding over onto the state budget. Stop that PAY THIS OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES CITIZEN bills they send out twice a year.

The idea was to have an independent broadcaster, over time the cost of that began to grow so the gov started to add funding.
Now we pay towards a broadcaster that feeds us whatever political crap the current gov want us to here.
I don't have a license and never will have one.

What is the state of NRK anyway? in terms of programming.

The idea is to have a publically funded, thus financially independent organization to make content with no ulterior motives.
Then reality hits and it doesn't work at all because public funding has just as many strings attached as profit chasing companies, but that's the idea.

It pays for the BBC, and you only technically have to pay it if you have and watch tv.

I don't watch TV, they send some good programs and some shit programs. They are firmly on the left side of things, but that seems to be the case with every fucking journalist these days. They're not quite so blatant as the bbc is though.

Young people still watch trash anyway

the tv licence is an archaic method of paying for the programmes played on the tv.
i guess the modern version would be the app store for an iphone, you get the phone but its essentially a device to pay for utility and entertainment apps.
Back then with out the internet or app stores your licence fee paid the BBC to create content for you to watch.
As the BBC evolved its purpose into a propaganda tool that licence fee essentially became a method of creating a narrative that suited the mindset of those people who could firstly afford a tv (which whenn they were first devised were as expensive as a car) and secondly felt compelled to watch the thing in the first place, dont forget that the cinema was a well established thing before the television.
Currently i dont know any one who watches the tv seriously.
Watching TV used to be like listening to music you could judge a persons tastes based on their tv schedule.
I guess now the modern equivalent would be looking at some ones browser history to determine their preferences.

Attached: tumblr_pm1u92fuwA1urbdffo1_1280.jpg (768x960, 61K)

>i know you guys like to meme on britbongs, but can someone explain to me the actual logical thinking behind something like a TV license?

Faggotry and cuckoldry.

>government decides the government needs to own radio/tv companies
>government decides taxes should be used to fund the government companies

It's really that simple.

Niggers.

This thread may be closed now.

Attached: thread.jpg (211x239, 6K)

>can someone explain to me the actual logical thinking behind something like a TV license?

It's a historical anachronism.
The BBC is 100 years old, almost as old as television itself. When the BBC was created it was the only TV channel in the UK and semi state owned. At the time TV's were an expensive luxury and only a small percentage of the population owned them so it would have been unfair to fund it through taxation, so the TV licence was created instead. Owning a TV licence allowed you to watch television and also paid for the BBC. There were no other TV stations so there was no other reason to own a TV in the UK other than to watch the BBC.
In the modern age the TV licence makes less sense, there are many other TV channels in the UK and also more reasons to own a TV (such as vidya and streaming/movies) but inertia keeps it alive. Really the TV licence should just be abolished and the BBC paid for out of general taxation (or forced to pay for itself through advertising/subscription) but because the TV licence already exists it probably wont be replaced. Kind of like the royal family.

Attached: onhGXhza_400x400.jpg (400x400, 31K)

It was intended as a public service, and under that premise the public should pay for it. There wasn't any kind of mainstream alternative to watching shit over the air until the late 70s so there was ostensibly no reason to even own a tv unless you wanted to watch OTA content and that content had to be paid for and that payment came via a TV license.

It was intended to be independent of the government, so the government shouldn't pay for it.

The fact of the matter is it was never, really, independent of the government and often acted as a mouthpiece for Number 10 for the better part of 5 decades. It didn't begin to take on a more adversarial role until Thatcher.